(721) RAJESH GOYAL Vs. DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 166 — Enhancement of Compensation — Permanent Disability (Amputation) — Appeal against MACT award for enhancement — Claimant aged 34 suffered 80% permanent disability due to amputation of left arm above elbow — Compensation significantly enhanced based on reassessment. India Law Library Docid # 2423882
(722) RAKESH AGGARWAL Vs. KRISHNA AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 91, 92 — Admissibility of Audio-Video Recording and Expert Voice Comparison — Evidence Contradicting Written Documents (Sale Deeds/Powers of Attorney) — Suit filed for declaration, where plaintiffs alleged execution of sale deeds and powers of attorney as security for loan transactions with defendant no.1 — Plaintiffs sought to prove the nature of transactions and surrounding circumstances through an audio-video recording — Defendant no.1 denied his voice/face in th India Law Library Docid # 2423925
(723) DHANRAJ AND ORS Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 397 and 401 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376D — At the stage of framing charges in a criminal case, the court is required to evaluate the material on record to determine if a prima facie case exists against the accused for the alleged offences under the Section 397 and 401 and the Section 376D IPC, and discrepancies in statements are generally considered a matter of defence to be addressed during trial — The High Court dismissed a criminal re India Law Library Docid # 2424038
(724) YOGESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) — For a conviction under Sections 7 and 13, the proof of prior demand for illegal gratification by the public servant is a sine qua non, and mere acceptance of money without proving demand is insufficient — The High Court allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) — The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for a bribe by the appellant, as the complainant' India Law Library Docid # 2424039
(725) M/S KAVITA ENTERPRISES Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 17 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — A writ petition seeking the return of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and Earnest Money Deposits (EMDs) dating back to 1993-1996 was rightly dismissed due to being time-barred by limitation, suffering from delay and laches, lacking necessary particulars, and involving disputed questions of fact — The High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order that had dismissed a writ petition filed by India Law Library Docid # 2424040
(726) DISPOSAFE HEALTH AND LIFE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. RAJIV NATH AND ANOTHER[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 — Injunction — A review petition was allowed due to an error apparent on the face of the record in the main judgment for not recording a categorical finding on the appellant's prayer for an injunction, and the subsequent appeal was allowed based on the prima facie establishment of prior use of the trademark “DISPOSAFE” — The High Court allowed a review petition of its earlier judgment, finding an error in not passing an operative order regardin India Law Library Docid # 2424041
(727) NAND KISHOR Vs. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RANI DUTTA ARYA VIDYALAYA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 — Rule 114A — A resignation tendered by an employee and accepted by the Managing Committee of a recognized private school becomes effective and cannot be unilaterally withdrawn after its acceptance and the expiry of 30 days from the communication to the Director of Education, as per Rule 114A, which includes a deeming provision for approval if no communication is received from the Director within 30 days — The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challeng India Law Library Docid # 2424042
(728) HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Delhi Development Act, 1957 — Horticulturists operating in the Yamuna Floodplains, falling under Zone 'O' of the Master Plan for Delhi-2021, are considered encroachers with no legal right to continue occupation or seek rehabilitation, especially in light of the need for eco-restoration as per directions of the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal — The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Harit Nurseries Welfare Association seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DD India Law Library Docid # 2424043
(729) PLANET CAST MEDIA SERVICES LTD Vs. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 16 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 14 Rule 5 — A trial court must frame specific issues that arise from the pleadings of the parties, including defences like lack of privity of contract and misjoinder of parties, to ensure proper adjudication of a commercial suit, even if a general issue regarding the entitlement to relief has already been framed — The High Court allowed a petition challenging a trial court's order that had dismissed an application for India Law Library Docid # 2424044
(730) KAWALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 — Section 32(d) — When an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available under Section 32(d), the High Court may decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless exceptions such as violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction apply — The High Court dismissed several Letters Patent Appeals against a Single Judge's decision that had relegated the appellants to the alternative remedy a India Law Library Docid # 2424045
(731) SAURABH GUPTA Vs. CHANDRESH GAUTAM AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — A plaint that does not disclose a cause of action is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, and a subsequent suit claiming similar relief as a previously rejected suit may be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, 1908 — The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order that had dismissed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, seeking rejection of a civil suit — The suit had been filed for injunct India Law Library Docid # 2424046
(732) RAJENDRA KUSHWAH Vs. M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANCY LTD. THR. AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 28-02-2025 Compassionate Appointment — Object and Purpose — Appointment on compassionate grounds aims to meet immediate unexpected hardship faced by the family due to the bread earner’s death, not to provide endless compassion or serve as a regular source of recruitment. India Law Library Docid # 2424117
(733) SMT. RAJUDIBAI AND OTHERS Vs. GANESH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-02-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 168 & 173 — Compensation — Fatal Accident — Assessment of Income — Labourer — In the absence of documentary proof for income of a deceased labourer, the Tribunal should assess notional income based on the minimum wages applicable to the relevant category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled) as notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the period corresponding to the accident, rather than fixing an arbitrary lower amount. (Following Sapna vs. Mangilal, 2021 India Law Library Docid # 2424115
(734) SMT MADHU @ MATTHU AND OTHERS Vs. RAJU AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 28-02-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 168 & 173 — Compensation — Assessment of Income — Minimum Wages — Even where claimants fail to produce documentary evidence of the deceased’s income, the Tribunal should assess income based on the minimum wages prescribed by the State for the relevant period and category of worker. (Relying on Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166) India Law Library Docid # 2424116
(735) MOTAN DAS AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Constitution of India — Article 243-Q — Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Section 3 — Constitution of Municipalities — Governor’s Discretion — Parameters — Article 243-Q(2) vests discretionary power in the Governor (exercised by the State Government) to specify areas as transitional, smaller urban, or larger urban areas, having regard to prescribed factors like population, density, revenue, etc — It does not mandate the issuance of a separate notification laying down uniform parameters for th India Law Library Docid # 2424225
(736) AIMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. MUKESH KUMAR BERWA[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Eligibility Criteria — Relevant Date — Governing Policy/Rules — Retrospectivity — The eligibility of a dependent for compassionate appointment must be determined based on the rules or policy prevailing on the date of death of the government servant — Where a condition imposing non-eligibility (such as having more than two children after a specified cut-off date) is introduced through a Government notification or policy after the employee’s death, and suc India Law Library Docid # 2424235
(737) BRIJESH KUMAR MEENA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 28-02-2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Hostile Witnesses — Conviction under Ss. 7 and 13 requires unimpeachable proof of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt — Where the complainant (PW16) and the alleged victims (PW14, PW15, PW20) from whom bribe was allegedly demanded/extorted turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case regarding such demand or acceptance, the foundational require India Law Library Docid # 2424267
(738) ANWAR DHEBAR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH-ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. E.D.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45 — Bail — Twin Conditions Post Vijay Madanlal Choudhary — The mandatory twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA (reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail) are constitutionally valid and applicable, overriding general bail provisions, as affirmed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India. India Law Library Docid # 2424665
(739) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAMRUDDHI SAVING AND INVESTMENT (I) LTD.[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 — Section 45-MC — Power to File Winding Up Petition — The Reserve Bank of India”s power to file a winding-up petition under Section 45-MC is specifically applicable to a “non-banking financial company” (NBFC) India Law Library Docid # 2424666
(740) BALDAU NISHAD Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 28-02-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Section 8 & IPC Sections 354, 354A — Proof of Offence — Conviction under Section 8 POCSO Act (Sexual assault) and Sections 354/354A IPC (Assault/Sexual harassment intending to outrage modesty) can be based on the clear and consistent testimony of the minor victim supported by corroborative evidence like statements of family members and proof establishing the victim”s age below 18 years. India Law Library Docid # 2424667